Re: [dhcwg] Mail regarding draft-gandhewar-dhc-v6-relay-initiated and draft-gandhewar-dhc-relay-initiated-release

Sunil Gandhewar <sgandhewar@juniper.net> Fri, 04 September 2015 01:53 UTC

Return-Path: <sgandhewar@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DF821ACE90 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 18:53:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.448
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_25=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id li8dbW44NgAU for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 18:53:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2on0146.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61D5A1A89F6 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 18:53:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLUPR0501MB1043.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.160.35.142) by BLUPR0501MB1041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.160.35.140) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.262.15; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 01:53:55 +0000
Received: from BLUPR0501MB1043.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.35.142]) by BLUPR0501MB1043.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.35.142]) with mapi id 15.01.0256.013; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 01:53:55 +0000
From: Sunil Gandhewar <sgandhewar@juniper.net>
To: 김우태 <gmin1004@gmail.com>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Mail regarding draft-gandhewar-dhc-v6-relay-initiated and draft-gandhewar-dhc-relay-initiated-release
Thread-Index: AdDmq0/PzLMzDf3VRoapjzcdJSpZWAAAPLMAAAHv13A=
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 01:53:55 +0000
Message-ID: <BLUPR0501MB10438C583C6DA67BB49669E9C2570@BLUPR0501MB1043.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <001501d0e6ab$d296f910$77c4eb30$@gmail.com> <001801d0e6ac$453ccbc0$cfb66340$@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <001801d0e6ac$453ccbc0$cfb66340$@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=sgandhewar@juniper.net;
x-originating-ip: [116.197.184.19]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BLUPR0501MB1041; 5:9dfO/IaDdTcLZnP69Z9SonwWsOCzwvngdgY8tVRHV7B1bnwncqyIlDN1+gNSiAL92GrGa1m0oqTuNTcJIzGMvEbuKK9Dz26EGWGomWZnkz8/cgFJQwPgDFfEuYVIIEnbFbU3nAMjZJtZ5aY+NM2JzQ==; 24:Xlt+1aaLYkMK4kVnAEPugI6AZKG2ZjIIqgslb9C0Q3JON2DaXdrNoJ50GtelzpPvZez7jbzzE/Fet0UMXJXGwHmkhFlXrX3FOFe5DiDHnV0=; 20:pO+x3Fs5gii2OvTcyPOkwo7BZfR1BfQgQZDGJIs4fWrYG1LQalhmK+oh5aoS6xX2+ZLdBdMdGWeBGktl26A0bA==
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BLUPR0501MB1041;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BLUPR0501MB104124284D246CBB6C9BE321C2570@BLUPR0501MB1041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001); SRVR:BLUPR0501MB1041; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BLUPR0501MB1041;
x-forefront-prvs: 06891E23FB
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(53754006)(199003)(13464003)(377454003)(189002)(62966003)(5001770100001)(87936001)(76176999)(77156002)(76576001)(122556002)(86362001)(2900100001)(50986999)(2501003)(4001540100001)(54356999)(33656002)(40100003)(5003600100002)(77096005)(74316001)(81156007)(2950100001)(68736005)(99286002)(10400500002)(105586002)(106356001)(66066001)(101416001)(5004730100002)(46102003)(107886002)(102836002)(230783001)(97736004)(5001920100001)(5001830100001)(5001860100001)(19580405001)(189998001)(5002640100001)(5007970100001)(5001960100002)(92566002)(19580395003)(64706001)(4001430100001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR0501MB1041; H:BLUPR0501MB1043.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ks_c_5601-1987"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 04 Sep 2015 01:53:55.5157 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR0501MB1041
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/Ksb1Q7HjyJuOokTAXmwpUE8i7hI>
Cc: Sunil Gandhewar <sgandhewar@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Mail regarding draft-gandhewar-dhc-v6-relay-initiated and draft-gandhewar-dhc-relay-initiated-release
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 01:53:58 -0000

Thanks you Mr. Kim for your valuable feedback and support. The statistics you mentioned in your email are overwhelming. It indicates how critical it is for Service Providers to relinquish resources.


Regards,
Sunil Gandhewar
Juniper Networks, Inc.
sgandhewar@juniper.net



-----Original Message-----
From: 김우태 [mailto:gmin1004@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 6:25 AM
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Cc: Sunil Gandhewar
Subject: Mail regarding draft-gandhewar-dhc-v6-relay-initiated and draft-gandhewar-dhc-relay-initiated-release

Hi All,

These Drafts offers a useful way to implement DHCPv4/v6 Resource Management and we see value in these features and would like to see this as RFC. We support this drafts to become RFC.
For example, in kt(Korea Telecom) field DHCP server, DHCP release message generated only 0.05% of devices which IP address assigned in one day. And 99.95% devices didn't generate DHCP release messages in case of devices power-off.

And in some cases, IPv4/v6 addresses regulations by administrator or DHCP server can be impacted on IP assignment processes. But these features can be very useful.

Regards,
utae.Kim
kt infrra laboratory
gmin1004@gmail.com